I post very
little anymore because it does no good. I have hoped for years to find someone
who could address the questions I have about religion, but to no avail. Bishops,
Stake Presidents, General Authorities - nothing. Moroni's Challenge has
been worthless. Prayer has been a waste. So my wife will continue in her faith
alone. My commitment to truth and integrity will not allow me to join a religion
in which I do not believe.

Cest la vie. I just wish LDS would stop
condemning me as "unworthy" because I have not received the
"answer" they think they have received. I see so many people judged,
marginalized, and ostracized in the name of "choosing your friends
carefully" and "choose friends who share your values", and it is
bothersome. In my experience, Mormons, more than any other group I have known,
suffer from the false belief that "birds of a feather _should_ flock
together" and birds of a different feather should be avoided because they
are "unworthy".

IMHO, Church leaders should be more worried
about that than about whether or not "prejudice against Mormons is
acceptable".

Bill in NebraskaMaryville, MO

June 3, 2012 10:39 p.m.

To Brahmabull and others:

"We have had misguided souls in the
Church who have,in their ignorance, opposed the advice of the [President of the
Church], not sensing the fact that they were opposing the Lord and they have
fallen into darkness and sorrow, and unless they repent they will not find a
place in the celestial kingdom.

Let us remember that the President
of this Church has been officially designated as the pilot of the Church here in
motality to represent the Master of heaven and earth. When men as they have
sometimes done in order to win their success along some line or another, have
come to and individual or individuals and said, "I have had this dream and
this what the Lord wants us to do," you may know that they are not on the
Lord's side of the line. The dreams and visions and revelations of God to
the children of men have always come through his regularly appointed servant.
You may have dreams and manifestations for you own comfort or for your own
satisfaction, but you will not have them for the Church...We need not be
deceived." Who is deceiving who?

Sore losertampa, fl

June 3, 2012 3:41 p.m.

Pres.McKay said nothing external will hinder the Church's progress.
However, internal squabbles are a much bigger problem he further taught.

Brahmabullsandy, ut

June 2, 2012 9:58 p.m.

Jeff - Interesting assumption, but based on nothing. No I have never said that
in any of my posts. You are trying to lump me in with others you may have
encountered, but it doesn't work. I just don't like backtracking,
hiding truth, and justifications of changed doctrine. Is the picture clear now?

By the way, is it
that Mormons engaged in civil disobedience that you object to, that some Mormons
understand the articles of faith differently from you, that many Mormons vote
differently from you, or what? If the Church says to obey the law of the land,
and the law of the land permits civil disobedience, then what is wrong with the
Church's civil disobedience.

Oh, no, wait, I get it.
You're just angry that the Church supported Prop 8, and you want to use the
shotgun approach to criticism, and find fault with the Church no matter what it
does. That seems to be the approach of so many people that want to vent their
prejudice on the Church. "We hate the Mormons," they say, "because
the Mormons in California voted against Prop 8. We know that the number of
Mormons there cannot possibly total the number of votes that passed the
Proposition, but, if we can fan the fires of internicene hatred, we can divide
the coalition that won and have a better chance next time."

zoar63Mesa, AZ

June 2, 2012 4:18 p.m.

@sharrona

"But against the 10 commandments: The Fifth
Commandment,Exodus 20:12 "Honor your father and your mother."

If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born
him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers
that was hated:

Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit
that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before
the son of the hated ,which indeed the firstborn:

But he shall
acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double
portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right
of the firstborn is his

Duet 21:15-17

Not only did Moses
recognize polygamy but he also made laws regulating its practice.

Brahmabullsandy, ut

June 2, 2012 3:47 p.m.

Bill in Nebraska - I love how you continue to call people hateful names, and all
in defense of something you know to be fact. You continue to make excuses for
the church breaking the law in one breath and in the other stating that they
obey the law. Civil disobedience and breaking the law are one in the same - you
and I both know that, but I am the only one to admit it. Until you stop making
excuses you will continue to be in darkness. You berate everybody who
doesn't believe in fairytales, and do it all in the name of god. I am sure
that is what he would want you to do.

morpunktGlendora, CA

June 2, 2012 8:21 a.m.

Prejudice against Mormonism will always be around. It is part of what is
supposed to be, as being a disciple of Jesus Christ. This is a destiny, just as
it was during the early Christian era, before the great Apostasty, up until 325
AD. What more can we expect?

Jennifer in San DiegoSAN DIEGO, CA

June 1, 2012 9:02 p.m.

I think every group believes they are victims of bigotry and prejudice.
Born-again Christians feel like everyone wants them to shut up, Muslims complain
that they are threatened, Jews complain that Antisemitism is rampant, atheists
feel put upon by the religious majority...It's par for the course for
people to think they have it tougher than others. Academics might think Mormons
are stupid or ignorant, but are Mormons barred from entering certain colleges?
Are they denied jobs because of their faith? Are they denied the right to marry?
Raise children? Move from one neighborhood to another? In all my years as a
Mormon I never came across outright bigotry -- ignorance, sure. Prejudice, sure.
But what are we supposed to do, cry over thought crimes? Whine because there
are people out there who think the church and its members are morons? There are
much bigger problems to deal with than this.

Stay the CourseSalt Lake City, utah

June 1, 2012 5:20 p.m.

Vanka still good to see you are reading the commentsWe couldn't
disagree more on several issues but I still like reading your comments just
wondered why you seemed to suddenly quit posting

snowmanProvo, UT

June 1, 2012 9:24 a.m.

sharrona: What you said about what Mormons believe is right except this(Christ
was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten
by mortal fathers)

VankaProvo, UT

June 1, 2012 9:22 a.m.

Stay the Course

You missed me?

Why?

A ScientistProvo, UT

June 1, 2012 9:20 a.m.

Mormonism officially and openly aspires to rule the world. It officially and
socially discriminates against those who do not believe their stories.

I oppose totalitarian ideologies in all their forms, including Mormonism.

That is not an unhealthy prejudice.

Brahmabullsandy, ut

June 1, 2012 9:06 a.m.

Wow. The moderators let those who agree with the article say anything they want,
then cancel comments by those who don't.

atl134 - Bill in
Nebraska has a bad habit of mixing up facts on purpose, and confusing the truth
to try to make his viewpoint look better. Most people know that polygamy was
illegal when it was practiced in Illinois - this is evident by the writings of
the members of that time.

As stated in the times and seasons. "The law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to
have more than one wife alive at once." Times and seasons volume 5.

Bill in Nebraska is going against what was printed at the time in the
mormon owned newspaper/periodical???

Most people know that the
articles of faith state that they should obey the laws of the land, yet
didn't do so with polygamy. Also, after Wilford Woodruff stopped polygamy,
many mormons still did it in secret, breaking the laws of the land. Why was it
in the articles of faith if they didn't intend to keep the laws of the
land.

sharronalayton, UT

June 1, 2012 8:37 a.m.

To: Bill in Nebraska: Christians are not Prejudice toward Mormonism they
disagree theologically. Polygamy is not the only area that of disagreement:Mormon view: Mormonism declares there are 3 Gods in the godhead. God was once
a man like us before he became a God. God the Father has a body of flesh and
bones.Christian view(Catholic protestant): God has always been God, There
is only one God(Triune). God does not change. God the Father does not have a
body of flesh and bones.

Mormon view; Jesus is our elder brother.
Lucifer is the brother of Jesus. Jesus is the firstborn spirit child of the
Father. Christ gained exaltation (became a God),All men were born sons of God in
the spirit. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that
mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.

Christian view(Catholic,
protestant): Jesus created angels including Lucifer. Jesus has always been God,
Jesus was a miraculous conception; a virgin gave birth by the power of the Holy
Spirit. The Jesus of Mormonism was born at Jerusalem. The Jesus of the Bible was
born in Bethlehem

Christian view: Holy Ghost/Spirit same Greek
word(pneuma

HotGlobeSAN RAFAEL, CA

June 1, 2012 4:33 a.m.

"Swedish reader" says "Prejudice is more like... 'You must have
negative qualities X, Y and Z because you belong to a particular group, since
all members of that group are that way.'" No, that is not exactly true
for groups to which people CHOOSE to belong. We shouldn't generalize about
people because of factors like race, but, for instance, we can make some
negative generalizations about people based on their choice to be Nazis.

We can also make some generalizations about people who choose to be
members of a particular faith, especially those who positively affirm support of
that faith. If we disagree with the tenets of that faith, we can say the
supporters have qualities that we consider negative, especially if membership in
the group requires believing in those tenets. So whereas "Mormons
shouldn't be allowed to run for office" is in conflict with our
American ideals, "I would never vote for a Mormon" can be a considered
decision based on an evaluation of facts that necessarily do apply, and that is
not what we mean by "prejudice."

Stay the CourseSalt Lake City, utah

May 31, 2012 10:19 p.m.

Hey just wondering anyone seen or hear from Vanka lately?Where did he
go????? Hasnt been on the comment board lately

It's sad some people
are so bitter and unhappy that they never miss a chance to attack the Church on
any article or basis they can find.

I once attended a presentation
for the CLIO awards in Washington, D.C. When the ad the LDS Church had produced
(and had won awards) was shown, a large, audible "BOOOO" went throughout
the audience. The ad was about "The Good Samaritan." The "boooo"
didn't happen until the end of the ad when it stated it was produced by
"The Mormons." It was pretty shocking and very sad.

Most of
these "broadminded" liberals are actually some of the most
narrow-minded, mean-spirited people on the planet. They're open minded only
toward those they agree with.

This post made a lot of sense until the
last Paragraph, then you let your own prejudice show. I personally have never
known many "broadminded" conservatives but plenty of narrow-minded,
mean-spirited ones. These descriptive words fit many people on both sides of
the fence, so lets not paint anyone with a broad brush.

Butch70Spokane, WA

May 31, 2012 12:15 p.m.

I have among Mormons when I was a kid in a small town Arco, Id. where most of
the kids were Mormon and I got along with them. I believe in religian just do
not try to shove it down my throat. Enough said.

patriotCedar Hills, UT

May 31, 2012 12:06 p.m.

actually prejudice against any conservative God believing patriotic group is
acceptable in America today. However prejudice against communist's and
their close relatives (Marxism Socialism Atheism) is not acceptable. At least
these are the main stream media standards.

Swedish readerStockholm, Sweden

May 31, 2012 8:12 a.m.

HotGlobe hits the nail on the head. Valid disagreement is not prejudice, because
it's simply "I disagree with you on this particular issue".
Prejudice is more like "You're a bad person/ignorant/stupid/malevolent
because you have a different opinion than I", or "You must have negative
qualities X, Y and Z because you belong to a particular group, since all members
of that group are that way". Being LDS in a country where people often have
prejudice against religion, I make it a habit to show people who I am before I
talk about it. If you lead with "I belong to this particular group",
people who have prejudice will only see that prejudice. If you lead with showing
who you are, they realize their prejudice was wrong. Every individual deserves
to be judged on his or her own merits, and everyone is entitled to their own
opinion. That also entails expressing it without being disrespectful to others.
And voting where an issue is put to the vote.

TA1Alexandria, VA

May 31, 2012 8:07 a.m.

A number of years ago when I first became a member of the LDS Church this topic
came up in an Elders Quorum meeting and my response at the time was - if you are
going to be an insular group (in other words where your life revolves around the
Church - not necessarily the Gospel)than you bring on the prejudice by your own
doing. It is only after we remember to go out into our communities and be the
examples to ALL people of what Latter-day Saints are really all about that
prejudice will begin to go away. My thoughts have not changed on the topic in 22
years - we need to be in the community from time to time helping and doing the
things we have covenanted to do, not always in Church activities and meetings.

HotGlobeSAN RAFAEL, CA

May 31, 2012 7:47 a.m.

We are discussing whether valid disagreement constitutes prejudice and there are
two teams skirmishing. Readers should keep in mind that this is a
"moderated" discussion, meaning that there is a referee who controls
what comments appear, and that referee may be ruling according to bias. Could
the full argument for why disagreement is not prejudice ever appear here? Draw
your own conclusion.

LValfreCHICAGO, IL

May 31, 2012 7:08 a.m.

@Swedish reader,

Obviously in Sweden you government actually cares
about people. Keep rocking! America is becoming secular like much of
Europe!

Follow you faith freely just leave it out of government and
leave your citizens to their own divide.

Swedish readerStockholm, Sweden

May 31, 2012 1:46 a.m.

I realize I missed a word, so let me rephrade:

Polygamy has a
LONGSTANDING legal precedent, since it has been legal in several muslim
countries for hundreds of years. The legalization of gay marriage in Sweden and
other places is very, very recent. That doesn't make it invalid - my
question is why someone who vehemently asserts that it is a human right to have
your relationship legally defined as marriage if it is between two consenting
adults of the same sex doesn't also express similar sentiments regarding
other kinds of relationships. Is he so consumed by his own situation that
it's all he sees?

Swedish readerStockholm, Sweden

May 31, 2012 1:27 a.m.

Prejudice against religion is very prevalent here. Anyone believing in a
personal God is often looked at pretty much the same way as an adult who
believes in Santa Claus, especially if they're Christian or Muslim.
(It's much more politically correct to be buddhist, for some reaason.) As usual, RanchHand tries to make this discussion about gay marriage. His
argument that we don't get to vote on the rights of others is flawed,
beacuse it is not a human right to have your relationship legally defined as
marriage. If he really think so, why isn't he arguing for polygamy as well
(it, at least, has a legal precedent in that it has been legal in several muslim
countries for centuries). Gay marriage is legal here in Sweden after a lengthy
debate and a vote in parliament a couple of years ago. Most of the members of
parliament aren't gay. Was it wrong for them to vote on the issue, too?

gdog3finallyWest Jordan, Utah

May 31, 2012 1:11 a.m.

Wow, the three pages of comments here cover quite a bit of perspectives. Some
are dogmatic and hateful, but most are passionate and worth some thought (both
for and against the church).

Much of the opposition to both sides
contain some meat to consume. Still, and it's unfortunate, there is to much
reluctance to fairly re-examine oneself and their own stance.

If you
have problems with the LDS church, it doesn't mean there can't be
things to respect. Likewise, if you are a devout member of the church, you can
still consider flaws in certain patterns of behavior from within the culture of
the faith.

Guam_BombBARRIGADA, GU

May 31, 2012 12:40 a.m.

I think often the problem is that people from one perspective get so upset when
people from another perspective know very little about them an don't have
much of a reason to find out more. Assuming prejudice on the part of the other
perspective is just the pot calling the kettle black. Mormon's saying that
academics are prejudiced is just as prejudiced as academics jeering at
Mormon's out of ignorance.

The whole premise of the article
accentuates the differences between mormons and others. It doesn't take
into account that the vast majority of non-mormons know very little about the
religion. Mormons know a lot about other religions, because they so often have
to defend their religion to others. But most other religions only know what they
have been told by their pastor or priest. I'll be honest, it bothers me
that it bothers so many other members of the church when they perceive anything
that doesn't agree with their undstanding of the church as an attack.

LValfreCHICAGO, IL

May 30, 2012 10:21 p.m.

@Cinci Man

"Critics don't have time to look for the truth of
what we believe. Sad, but true."

Wrong. I spent A LOT of time
looking for the truth and I found it. Sad, but true.

Tolstoysalt lake, UT

May 30, 2012 10:09 p.m.

@a voice of reason so if i where to say I have nothing against LDS people
as long as they don't act on their desire to be LDS by going to church or
reading the bible because my beliefs (lets say I am a Southern Baptist and my
clergy tells me your not a religion based on our interpretation of the bible)
then I would be clear of claims of bias? The point being I think you are trying
to split a hair that does not exist.

snowmanProvo, UT

May 30, 2012 9:32 p.m.

AZRods: The church is not predudice against gays and lesbians.

Fred
Vader: The church had nothing to do with Prop 8.

RanchHand: Our
God is everyones god. We are all his children.

SerenityManti, UT

May 30, 2012 8:46 p.m.

Ranch Hand: I won't even begin to "preach" about God and Adam and
Eve and etc, because you don't have to believe that. But do take a look at
nature. Males always mate with females. The male elephant mates with the female
so do the cougars, so do the lions. Male dogs mate with female dogs and male
cats with female cats. Of course you can go to lower life forms who mate by
themselves but that's not pertinent to this discussion. Male and female -
that is the natural order of things. So why is it so different for humans? Why
do they want to twist nature and the natural order and they want to mate with
the same sex? Then they want to sanctify that unnatural union by calling it a
marriage? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

cavetrollSANDY, UT

May 30, 2012 8:36 p.m.

@Kami, I couldn't agree with you more. Good neighbors are good
neighbors whether they are LDS, Catholic, Baptist, or atheist. Religion
doesn't make good neighbors. I have had plenty of good neighbors who came
from many different religious ideologies. I have also had plenty of bad
neighbors who came from different ideologies, including those of the LDS
faith.

@Riverton CougarThe fact that a neighbor gave keys to a
Cadillac is unimportant. Maybe Kami never needed keys to the neighbor's
Caddy or the neighbor didn't have a Caddy. What matters is that neighbors
help neghbors. I have had some LDS neighbors who wouldn't give the time of
day, as I am Catholic, and this did not sit well with them. I have also had
liberal, atheist neighbors who were the same way. But I have also had good
religious neighbors and good nonreligious neighbors.

Bill in NebraskaMaryville, MO

May 30, 2012 8:34 p.m.

Sharrona once more you bring in scripture to do no more than make your point but
completely disreguard all other scriptures around it. Even the one in Jacob as
you read further indicates that if the father directs it then it is approved.
That is where we differ from you in that we believe in continued revelation and
that the reason for polgamy actually came from the Father. Also, David was
chastised only after his relationship with Bathseba. Upon until that point that
Lord states that the wives David had were given to him. Abraham another is
shown that he too had multiple wives and in fact his son Isaac came from such.
Jacob had multiple wives and thus his twelve sons from two different wives are
the tribes of Israel. Many Christian churches don't understand that when
the Lord directs, just do it. Joseph Smith understood this and obeyed.

Tolstoy: Oh yes Ranchand does so state maybe not in this thread but any
thread that may be controversial he comes out loud and clear that LDS members
are not to vote their conscience. That we shouldn't be allowed to vote and
that our votes shouldn't count.

RanchHere, UT

May 30, 2012 8:32 p.m.

ExecutorIoh says:

"Tolerance first starts with the one asking for
it."

I doubt you got the irony of your comment, right after
calling gays mentally diseased (among other things).

@Jeff;

When are you going to put your own civil rights up to a majority vote? The
civil rights of Americans do not belong on the ballot; not mine, not yours. Get
it? (Probably not). You clearly don't understand that First Amendment,
which gives people the right to worship whomever, however they please, you
don't get to force us to follow your god's dictates with your vote.

I don't hate Mormons. I don't dislike Mormons. I hate the
things you do to others in the name of your god.

@very concerned;

When did your conscience say that it was moral to vote on the civil
rights of others? That IS prejudice, it is also forcing your beliefs on us,
even if you think it's "for the best", why not follow your god and
let us choose to live our lives ourselves?

DarrelEagle Mountain, UT

May 30, 2012 7:59 p.m.

@ Cinci Man

"The LDS Church teaches us to pray to Heavenly Father
in Christ's name. The Bible teaches the same thing. Nowhere in the Bible
are we taught to pray to Jesus, yet Christian churches all teach that as far as
I know...

We claim prejudice against ourselves, but do we not see it
in ourselves? As for the questions above you raise, it shows that we do not do
a good enough job. We need to understand one another, rather than fault. Most
Christian churches would teach that the God head is one and the same, praying to
Jesus IS praying to the Father (in essence not too different from us, the
Nephites prayed to Jesus while He was there, and He did not tell them to stop,
or correct them)

We may understand the doctrine of prayer differently
than most other Christian Churches, but their beliefs are no less sacred to
them, than ours to us. If we truly want to wash ourselves of prejudice against
ourselves, let us seek to be tolerant, and understanding of others first. One
can disagree, respectfully, without being disagreeable.

A voice of ReasonSalt Lake City, UT

May 30, 2012 7:31 p.m.

Bill in NE, well said-

The LDS Church does not make any claims
against gay persons. Rather, LDS teachings only make claims of morality
regarding when a person acts, or rather gives heed to those feelings in one way
or another. The distinction is obvious, but the anti-LDS neglect it. I would go
as far as saying that it is only for convenience, to appear more convincing of
their anti-LDS bias, to make such prejudiced arguments.

If I argued
against someone simply because they felt an attraction, then it would be very
different. But the LDS Church doesn't do this, nor is anyone considered
immoral because of their feelings or temptations.

Anti-LDS is a
literal Ad Hominem, where the LDS Church is making a claim about an act- the
exact opposite of Ad Hominem. While gay-marriage proponents have argued that
'born this way' ties the act to the person, there are in fact LDS
members (and others) identifying as gay but who do not act on it to satisfy
moral cleanliness according to their beliefs- preserving the distinction between
acts and feelings. Thus proving anti-LDS = prejudice, while the LDS Church is
reasonable.

Cinci ManFT MITCHELL, KY

May 30, 2012 7:21 p.m.

The LDS Church teaches us to pray to Heavenly Father in Christ's name. The
Bible teaches the same thing. Nowhere in the Bible are we taught to pray to
Jesus, yet Christian churches all teach that as far as I know. And Christian
leaders criticize the LDS Church for not following the teachings of the Bible.
Hmm. One would think that something so fundamental and clear ought to be
universally followed. Even Christ himself taught us to pray to the Father.

The LDS Church teaches us that Jesus Christ is a resurrected being and
so does the Bible. He made details about his resurrected body quite clear and it
is recorded clearly in the Bible. Yet other Christian churches teach that he
gave up his body. But there is no scriptural reference of this other death nor
of the whereabouts of his resurrected body. Why are Mormons criticized for
following the Bible? There are so many wonderful books out there for people who
really want to know what we believe. But those books are read almost
exclusively among our members. Critics don't have time to look for the
truth of what we believe. Sad, but true.

BebyebeUUU, UT

May 30, 2012 7:00 p.m.

"If you don't like it you can leave."

Each time
I've heard that makes me less concerned with mormon feelings.

sharronalayton, UT

May 30, 2012 6:58 p.m.

@Riverton Cougar: I suppose when God commanded Joshua to kill every living
thing, he broke the commandments?Context, Joshua is the story of how God
(to whom the World belongs) reconquered a portion of the earth Who relied on
false gods, God’s Wrath was on Canaan, who’s measure of sin is now
full(Gen 15:16). He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and
he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the Wrath of God abideth
on him.(John 3:36)

Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate
because of their filthiness and cursing which come upon their skins, are more
righteous than you; for they have not the commandment of the Lord, which was
given unto our fathers-that that they should have save it one wife ,and
concubines should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among
them.(Jacob 3:5)on polygamy.

Jesus said … a man will leave his
father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one
flesh’(Mt 19:5)(D&C)132: 51-57 in context JS warns Emma to be
faithful.

Tolstoysalt lake, UT

May 30, 2012 6:53 p.m.

@CI I think you "broadminded" diatribe about "leftist"
pretty much says it all about how "liberal in webster sense of the word"
you really are. Not sure there is a need for a counter argument given that you
already provided your own.

Tolstoysalt lake, UT

May 30, 2012 6:24 p.m.

@jeffplease tell us where ranchand has ever said or suggested that LDS
people should not get to vote or that there should be a poll tax or any of the
other claims you make about what they think. Maybe you should stick t speaking
for yourself rather then assuming you know other intents.

spring streetSALT LAKE CITY, UT

May 30, 2012 6:20 p.m.

@TheProudDuckyou claim scientific research that proves your claims? what
research exactly would that be?

very concernedSandy, UT

May 30, 2012 6:14 p.m.

@RanchHand

A great number of us (LDS and non-LDS) DO believe in God,
and do believe He is very interested in our happiness. Therefore He gives us
commandments to lead us safely among the minefields of life.

No, we
don't have the right to force our opinion on others, but we do have the
right (in this country at least) to vote our consciences. We only naturally
vote for those things which we believe will bring happiness and peace to the
world.

spring streetSALT LAKE CITY, UT

May 30, 2012 6:10 p.m.

@catswell guess we can take that is a really big no then, you really do
not see just how offensive your comments are

UTAH BillSalt Lake City, UT

May 30, 2012 6:06 p.m.

Prejudice begets prejudice. If the LDS Church (of which I'm a member)
wants people to stop being prejudiced against it, it needs to stop being
prejudiced against others. For, it's disingenuous to claim everyone should
tolerate LDS beliefs and stances, when many LDS members do not tolerate the
beliefs and stances of others.

AggieloveCache county, USA

May 30, 2012 6:05 p.m.

Who cares!I believe what I believe, so that about sums it up.Does
any if this shake my beliefs?Nope.

When you refer to doctrinal disagreements
as"spewing hate", you reveal your lack of education on many levels. You
are giving LDS a bad reputation with closed-minded rhetoric and visceral
arguments. Academics and literate people know how to discuss ideas without
knee-jerk reactions and whining. Why not consider Comment Sections as an
opportunity to exchange your opinions in the marketplace of ideas?

We
all can learn a lot more when we are polite and listen, witness when asked, and
stop the thin-skinned, defensive recriminations. Biblical believers have to
contend with atheists, agnostics, skeptics every day in academic life. It is a
great opportunity to be tested, challenged intellectually and spiritually, and
to share Christ when asked.

I find these DN comment sites a true
effort to visit. You would do well to visit other Christian chat rooms and see
how much scripture is discussed, and how opinions are held up to the Biblical
standard.

Everything else is as useless as "endless and vain
geneologies".

HawkyoSYRACUSE, UT

May 30, 2012 4:57 p.m.

SHarona of course it doesn't say mothers in the ten commandments, you
can't be born of TWO women! You assertion is laughable.

LValfreCHICAGO, IL

May 30, 2012 4:54 p.m.

@esodije

"Three reasons: (1) Mormons tend to be religious in fact
(and not for political show); (2) Mormons are predominantly conservative; and
(3) Mormons are predominantly Caucasian."

Esodije, Why are these
three reasons the case? Please explain in further detail. DNews denied this
question for some reason. I'm assuming you're a member and can shed
some light for me.

HawkyoSYRACUSE, UT

May 30, 2012 4:54 p.m.

Ranch hand, your name wouldnt be Thomas by any chance would it? AS in Doubting
Thomas?

Semper FiBakersfield, CA

May 30, 2012 4:41 p.m.

This article cited no prejudice, just academics who disagree with Mormon
doctrine. It didn't even cite what, if any, religion those academics were.
NO context, no perspective.

All religions are accepted in this
country, but not inside individual churches. Any religious person can
"run" for president; but individual citizens can choose to not to vote
for a candidate based solely on the candidate's religion, should that be an
issue for the voter. Just because one citizen would vote for any candidate does
not mean that he is any more loving/liberal/gracious than the one who has
religious convictions that prevents him from voting that way.

What is
revealing on every DN comment site is the almost total lack of Biblical
references, reasons or restrictions mentioned. The majority of members here
seem to think that they can redefine Biblical Christianity with their own
definitions and that Biblical Christians are supposed to roll over and let the
counterfeit gospel in. You have your churches, colleges and seminary classes
for that. Stop equating other Christian's refusal of your 19th-century
remake gospel to "masquerade" as Biblical truth.

The Bible is
the plumb-line. The Bible always will be.

TheProudDuckNewport Beach, CA

May 30, 2012 4:31 p.m.

"Most of these "broadminded" liberals are actually some of the most
narrow-minded, mean-spirited people on the planet. They're open minded only
toward those they agree with."

There is actually scientific
research that confirms this, or something like it. The concept is called
"moral licensing." Basically, once we've accumulated enough mental
brownie points to consider ourselves good people, we tend to license ourselves
to let any further bother with common decency go by the board. I can't
count how many times I've been flipped the bird in traffic by someone with
"Mean people suck" and "Coexist" bumper stickers on his or her
smugmobile.

I imagine this same dynamic probably works somewhat
with religious people as well, although their religion actually commands
personal virtue as well as holding the right opinions, so the effect is probably
mitigated at least in part.

Of course if any liberal denies any of
this, he's anti-science and a denier. Boo!

JeffTemple City, CA

May 30, 2012 4:27 p.m.

Ranchhand has a special brand of anti-LDS prejudice (I think it extends to all
practicing believers, but I'm not sure because it is almost always directed
only at Latter-day Saints). Ranchhand says that we "don't get to vote
on the rights of other Americans. You do not get to do that!"

What is really meant by this is that, because many Latter-day Saints want to
vote to prohibit same-gender marriage, they should be prohibited from voting.
What does Ranchhand want? A poll tax? He has the same rights that we wish to
maintain for ourselves: the right to vote according to our consciences. He
does not have right (and thankfully, he doesn't have the authority) to
achieve what he constantly demands--that we NOT vote for what we think is
right.

He writes again: "If you believe that "god"
defined marriage, then by all means, follow your god's rule. You do NOT
have the right to require others follow your god's dictates. Period."

We absolutely have the right to vote according to what we think is
correct; you have the right to disagree; our disagreement is resolved in the
voting booth.

esodijeALBUQUERQUE, NM

May 30, 2012 3:57 p.m.

Three reasons: (1) Mormons tend to be religious in fact (and not for political
show); (2) Mormons are predominantly conservative; and (3) Mormons are
predominantly Caucasian.

ConvertCedar City, UT

May 30, 2012 3:15 p.m.

Prejudice is never acceptable. However, it has been with us since Cain.
Prejudice against Mormons is an historical thread.

Prejudice by
Mormons against other churches and their members has also been an historical
thread. I am always troubled by open ridicule of "JW's",
"Polig's", black Baptists. Whispers of Church of Satan being the
Catholics have faded over the years.

But that sort of prejudicial
labeling will live forever in the memories of those it offends. Just like the
abuse the Saints withstood in the 1800's.

It is natural for one
group to downplay their own prejudice while pointing the finger at others.

It is doubtful that group prejudice can be overcome. We can only look
within ourselves. Do we intend to be Christ-like? If so then we must
individually cease harming others through prejudice.

Prejudice has
been with humanity since Cain. But, it doesn't need to be us personally.

The RockFederal Way, WA

May 30, 2012 2:54 p.m.

Is prejudice acceptable?

Good question. To Pre-Judge somebody it to
judge before. Before what? Before the facts are known. Prejudice is the
definition of ignorance because it involves judgement before all the facts are
in.

Who among us would want to be judged in this way?

Riverton CougarRiverton, UT

May 30, 2012 2:37 p.m.

"The article is another example of someone assuming cause and effect in
order to prove his point. Your neighbors didn't help you BECAUSE they are
mormon; they helped because they are friendly neighbors."

So
Kami, your non-Utahn neighbors did all the stuff the author mentions? The stuff
the author mentions (such as giving them the keys to the Cadillac) is not your
typical "friendly neighbor" stuff. Besides, why would he make it a
point to specifically talk about how friendly they were if they were the same as
all his previous non-LDS neighbors?

sharonna,

You just
epitomized the phrase "taking things out of context". David and Solomon
had many wives, which were an abomination before God, but don't you find it
interesting that he didn't refer to polygamy as an abomination in
Jacob's case? You even quoted "if she be with another man ,and I have
not appointed unto her by holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall
be destroyed." Does the conditional clause in the middle not give you any
indication that there are exceptions?

I suppose when God commanded
Joshua to kill every living thing, he broke the commandments?

Shuzzie53HAYWARD, CA

May 30, 2012 2:17 p.m.

They got some good Mormons in Pocatello!

RedSalt Lake City, UT

May 30, 2012 2:05 p.m.

Great points. Good work! Keep the word spreading!

barkermomHurricane, UT

May 30, 2012 2:04 p.m.

Pete1215- You can have an opinion about someone that will make you want or not
want to vote for him for president. I will choose to not vote for someone who
believes that abortion is okay. I don't think that is prejudice. If you
just wouldn't vote for him because he is a Mormon and you don't know
anything about it that is prejudice.

atl134Salt Lake City, UT

May 30, 2012 1:42 p.m.

@Bill in Nebraska"The printing press destruction was never considered
unconstitutional except by those wishing to destroy the LDS Church. "

Um... destroying the property of others is illegal. I have no idea why
you are defending it.

"Polagamy was never stated as
unconstitutional or illegal until well after the LDS Church was in UTAH and only
to keep it from becoming a state. "

It was illegal in Illinois
state law. Fairwiki states 'Modern members of the Church generally miss the
significance of this fact, however: the practice of polygamy was a clear case of
civil disobedience. '

ExecutorIohWest Jordan, UT

May 30, 2012 1:36 p.m.

There seems to the idea out there that believe too many converse facts to be
truth. Why do people think that because people believe marriage should be
between a man and a woman has anything to do with dignity of gay people. Just
because I go to a gas station and buy gas for my car, doesn't mean that I
hate diesel or people that drive diesel vehicles. Prop 8 is anti-gay about as
much as my car is anti-diesel.

I am not anti-gay. I have several
good friends that are gay, but that doesn't mean that I accept
homosexuality as anything beyond a sexual vice or mental disease. Additionally,
it isn't about dignity or respect, that comes from within and has never
been a package that a political figure or judge hands you. If you want respect,
start by treating others with respect and people will give it back to you. Hate
and anger only begets more hate and anger. Tolerance first starts with the one
asking for it.

CatsSomewhere in Time, UT

May 30, 2012 1:34 p.m.

Dear Spring Street: I guess it's always easiest to mischaracterise the
comments of others when you don't have any intelligent counter arguments
yourself.

sharronalayton, UT

May 30, 2012 1:26 p.m.

@Bill in Nebraska, Polygamy was never stated as unconstitutional or illegal.

But against the 10 commandments: The Fifth Commandment,Exodus 20:12
"Honor your father and your mother.Ephesians 6:2,3. Honor your Father
and Mother[not Mothers]. God distinguishes father and mother from all other
persons on earth, chooses them and sets them next to Himself, occupying the
highest place in our lives next to God.

The BoM agrees with no
polygamy, behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which
thing was abominable before me saith the LordFor there shall be not any man
among you save it be one wife&(Jacob 2:24,27)

Seventh
Commandment,'You shall not commit adultery.' JS agrees ( D&C
132:41)and if she be with another man ,and I have not appointed unto her by holy
anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

KamiBountiful, Utah

May 30, 2012 1:05 p.m.

The article is another example of someone assuming cause and effect in order to
prove his point. Your neighbors didn't help you BECAUSE they are mormon;
they helped because they are friendly neighbors. I'm LDS, but I recognize
that you can find good neighbors everywhere. I have mostly LDS neighbors right
now, and they are mostly friendly, helpful neighbors. But I've lived
outside of Utah most of life, with perhaps only one LDS neighbor within blocks,
and my neighbors were about as friendly and helpful as my Utah neighbors are.

Pete1215Lafayette, IN

May 30, 2012 1:04 p.m.

Suppose a certain presidential contender accepted the LDS belief in Spirit
Children, waiting in queue of corporeal bodies. If this belief motivated him to
wish to remove federal funding from Planned Parenthood, then I might vote
against him because he is of that belief (and by association a Mormon). Is this
prejudice?

spring streetSALT LAKE CITY, UT

May 30, 2012 1:01 p.m.

@cats"You have to do those things when you are trying to convince
yourself and justify yourself. It's so sad. No...it's tragic!"

Do you really not see how that comment is dripping with prejudice?

CatsSomewhere in Time, UT

May 30, 2012 12:52 p.m.

Dear RG, Bill in Nebraska and Utes Fan: Your comments are ALL excellent and
based on logic and rational thought--not on prejudice and emotion.

Unfortunately, there are always those who spend all their time attacking the
Church in any form they can. You have to do those things when you are trying to
convince yourself and justify yourself. It's so sad. No...it's
tragic!

Tolstoysalt lake, UT

May 30, 2012 12:47 p.m.

@AZ rods So explain how if a non LDS person has a "different
opinion" (often based on inaccurate information) of the LDS Church it is
prejudice but when the LDS Church has a "different opinion" often base
on inaccurate information) of LGBT people's rights it is not prejudice. It
seems to me as someone that does not belong to either group that these
prejudices are both wrong. It also seems in the case that the des news and many
of the those posters that claim to be LDS on these threads (although not
necessarily reflective of the LDS Church itself) to be the old axiom those
quickest to give offense are the quickest to also take offense.

barkermomHurricane, UT

May 30, 2012 12:46 p.m.

I don't think it's prejudice if you don't agree with the doctrine
of the LDS church. You can say that you don't think Joseph Smith was a
prophet and I am fine with that. Saying that someone should not be president of
the United States simply because he is a Mormon is NOT okay. The fact that the
media can make negative comments about LDS people when those same comments if
spoken about another group of people would not be acceptable shows that
prejudice happens and that it is acceptable to many. Thank goodness there are
many reasonable and accepting people in this world who give us horrible LDS
people a chance! And let me say that I'm sorry to all those who have had
negative experiences with members of the church. We are only human.

RanchHandHuntsville, UT

May 30, 2012 12:45 p.m.

@Bill;

Your church and your god define marriage for you. You
don't get to vote on the rights of other Americans. You do not get to do
that! So, yes, we were raising money to prevent our rights from being revoked
by YOU.

If you believe that "god" defined marriage, then by
all means, follow your god's rule. You do NOT have the right to require
others follow your god's dictates. Period.

@RG;

If/When "god" tells me in person that I have to follow your rules,
then I'll do it. Until then, I will absolutely not blindly follow the
dictates of your leaders, I do not believe they speak to god or that he speaks
to them. I don't believe in your god anyway - fictional beings can't
say anything.

The DN refused to print my comment to Cats. You think
we're close-minded? We're not the ones trying to change your lives,
are we!

Utes FanSalt Lake City, UT

May 30, 2012 12:12 p.m.

@windigo77"I'm sorry Mormons, but when your religion flies in the
face of OBVIOUS FACTS, you don't get to claim you are being persecuted by
'THE REAL WORLD'."---------It is not disagreements
with LDS teachings that the article is concerned about. Latter-Day Saints are
the first to expect disagreements. Read the post by "Cats" above - it is
the perfect example of prejudice. That example has nothing to do with
disagreements with doctrine or ignoring facts. As far as facts are concerned,
there are plenty that critics of the LDS Church like to ignore.

JeffTemple City, CA

May 30, 2012 12:07 p.m.

I was betting myself that I would see posts on this article that said that
Mormons deserved what they get. Guess what? I won the bet!

Bill in NebraskaMaryville, MO

May 30, 2012 12:06 p.m.

To the critics: So it is ok to persecute us on our beliefs. Ranchhand the
problem is that yes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints did ask the
membership to assist and raise cash for the Pro Proposition 8 side. So what. I
guess it was equally okay for the LGBT (not glbt) to ask for cash from the
hollywood, liberal side. If you go and check though the LDS Church didn't
say you had to contribute so it was done by the members agency. That again puts
it where you want it. Your prejudice against anything LDS because you are a
practicing homosexual.

windigo77: Maybe you should go back and
recheck your facts more carefully. Your own bias is showing through. Remember
no one knows the DNA of the tribe of Joseph, not Judah. The printing press
destruction was never considered unconstitutional except by those wishing to
destroy the LDS Church. Polagamy was never stated as unconstitutional or
illegal until well after the LDS Church was in UTAH and only to keep it from
becoming a state. Again get your facts right before you spew hate and
anti-Mormon propaganda.

very concernedSandy, UT

May 30, 2012 11:57 a.m.

I would submit that prejudice against race, religion, or creed is far different
from attempting to discourage homosexual behavior and it's surrounding
implications. Apples and oranges.

RGBuena Vista, VA

May 30, 2012 11:55 a.m.

To Ranchhand: The LDS church asks us to be civil, and in fact, to love everyone,
which includes LGBT. But God was the one who invented marriage, and taught us
how it works, and said that it requires opposite genders. So if you don't
like the "traditional" definition of marriage, don't blame LDS
people, but instead take it up with God. But be careful; God is a lot smarter
than you are and will win the argument every time.

very concernedSandy, UT

May 30, 2012 11:52 a.m.

To wax more spiritual, might I suggest that God Himself is light years
(infinitely) ahead of us in the intelligence department. No matter how much
learning we get, we are pretty stupid compared to Him. So there's not much
to brag about. Actually, those who are *learned* would be better off showing
gratitude for their opportunities to get that learning. Unfortunately, the
human condition also tends to lead us to think we did it all ourselves. We have
to resist that human condition, or natural man. Pride is an ugly thing.

I appreciate this non-LDS person taking a shot at an accurate
description.

very concernedSandy, UT

May 30, 2012 11:48 a.m.

Unfortunately, the prejudice seems to be a classic case of those who are learned
thinking they are wise. Being learned is good . . . if one hearkens to the
counsel of the Lord. (See 2 Nephi 9:28) The human condition is such that
education, though it can be good, leads many to think they are superior, and can
at least shrug off spiritual things if not outright ridicule them or persecute
those who believe in them. I submit that reconciling man's knowledge and
education with spiritual things is one of life's greatest challenges and
opportunities.

CatsSomewhere in Time, UT

May 30, 2012 11:33 a.m.

It's sad some people are so bitter and unhappy that they never miss a
chance to attack the Church on any article or basis they can find.

I once attended a presentation for the CLIO awards in Washington, D.C. When
the ad the LDS Church had produced (and had won awards) was shown, a large,
audible "BOOOO" went throughout the audience. The ad was about "The
Good Samaritan." The "boooo" didn't happen until the end of
the ad when it stated it was produced by "The Mormons." It was pretty
shocking and very sad.

Most of these "broadminded" liberals
are actually some of the most narrow-minded, mean-spirited people on the planet.
They're open minded only toward those they agree with.

atl134Salt Lake City, UT

May 30, 2012 11:29 a.m.

@Shaden"He will surely be marginalized and ridiculed among the
academic community (and, doubtlessly, from those commenting on this thread--see
above) for his argument."

For what? Goodness, there isn't a
secret cabal of people who hate you. What he said is really non-controversial.
It's not like he was saying that any disagreement with Mormon doctrine is
prejudice.

TekakaromatagiDammam, Saudi Arabia

May 30, 2012 11:27 a.m.

I attended the University of Utah and I noted that some non-Mormons were
appallingly ignorant about Mormons. I would wonder where they came up with the
weird stuff.

Of all my experiences at the University of Utah these
experiences have helped me the most when accepting diversity. When I approach
other cultures and outsiders tell me what they (the particular culture of
interest) are like, if it is negative or demeaning I take it with a grain of
salt because I know how clueless some people can be when living in the middle of
another culture.

ShadenLincoln, NE

May 30, 2012 11:02 a.m.

The good professor from Idaho State is right on, and I appreciate that he had
the guts to write a story like that. He will surely be marginalized and
ridiculed among the academic community (and, doubtlessly, from those commenting
on this thread--see above) for his argument.

As an LDS academic
myself, I have witnessed the prejudice that members of the LDS church experience
in higher education. It is perfectly acceptable for academics to ridicule the
religious beliefs of those members. I found the constant refrains in academia of
"equality," "acceptance," and "coexistence" only to be
thinly-guised references to pro-LGBT causes, but never to religious tolerance.
Because the LDS church does not line up lock stock and barrel with the secular
winds of doctrine that prevail in academia, the church is consistently
ridiculed, or viewed with suspicion.

It would be nice if we all
could be civil to each other, regardless of our respective persuasions.

Fred VaderOklahoma City, OK

May 30, 2012 10:57 a.m.

"Frankly, while I personally believe that prejudice against any group is
unacceptable, there is a sort of justice when Karma comes back to shake your
hand."

The prejudice against Mormons existed long before Prop 8.
Over 150 years earlier. It's neither Karma, nor justice when it continues,
even after Prop. 8, it's still plain and simple prejudice.

AZRodsMaricopa, AZ

May 30, 2012 10:49 a.m.

"Predudice is born of ignorance" states it perfectly.Ranchhand,
saying that Mormons "seem to think" prejudice against glbt is acceptable
at the request of their leaders? Not stretching the facts a little here are
we?Or please provide evidence, anywhere that says that.The fact that
we have a different opinion on that subject does not imply prejudice.And
once again, the topic is not about glbt RH, try staying on topic.